I think plastic is a true miracle invention. Aviation, medicine, technology, there probably isn't an area where we haven't benefited from this great material. Used properly, it's not a problem.

What is damaging is the brute ugliness of modern materialism. We don't just use plastic to manufacture surgical tools, we use it to make plastic toy that we ship halfway round the world to give away with an equally repugnant 'happy meal' from McDonalds. Then we throw it away (hopefully into a bin) along with all its plastic wrapping.

That's not to say I don't agree with you - I massively support a ban on throw away plastic too (and more). I just think we need to be careful about demonising plastic as a material.

> most damaging inventions of the 20th century?

It would be impossible to say, without knowing the numbers - both of damage, as well as constructive, healing, or life-saving purposes.

For instance - think of all the things plastics have made possible, that no other material is capable of (or works as well). I'm thinking things like medical implants, as well as more mundane things like adhesives and tapes, and products based on those - for instance, how much infection have bandaids helped to prevent?

Then there's clothing, automotive interiors lessening injury in accidents, as well as use as a material that is lighter weight to lower fuel consumption for a variety of vehicles, among other uses.

I don't think you can paint plastics completely in a terrible light, just like you can't nuclear radiation, and any number of other things.

At worst, they are all double-edged swords, and we must as a species either decide to get rid of them entirely, or learn to use them properly. In the case of plastics, I doubt that the former will be the route we take for a variety of reasons - mainly though because their benefits seem to far outweigh their detriments (unless and until we have hard numbers for both, though, that's as unsupported as your original proposed claim - but it seems like that's what we've mostly decided).

So we need to learn how to better process and manufacture them, how to better manage their shipping and transportation, and how we dispose or recycle them (whatever that ultimately means).

There's enough important applications for single use plastics (keeping medical equipment sterile before use, for example) that I'd hate to see an outright ban.

However, I think we should be seriously be considering a cap-and-trade approach to managing it.

This could also be a tool to get corporations to use recycled material effectively. Post-consumer recycled material could either not count against the quota, or could be counted at a different rate than "virgin" plastic.

I'll be somewhat contrarian to the popular view, and say that making things biodegradable is even worse because it's essentially planned obolescence; the manufacturers continue to consume resources for producing products which are guaranteed to self-destruct.

The real problem is that people don't seem to appreciate just how amazingly durable plastics are (or the companies try to dissuade that in order to ensure their revenue stream...), and instead waste them carelessly.

If you were suffering from a life threatening illness or injury, would you choose to go to a hospital that refused to use any plastics?

> Is it far fetched to think that plastic is one of the most damaging inventions of the 20th century?

Well, given the vast range of utility and the fact that plastics have been in use for over 3000 years, probably (both the word “plastics” as a label for them and fully synthetic plastics are early 20th century inventions, though.)

Plastic in ocean gives extreme insensitive to bacteria or other life forms to come with way to consume it for energy. If something will come up with necessary enzymes and reactions, then not only we will end up without plastic, but perhaps without oil as well in a world polluted by byproducts of that plastic consumption that may not be compatible with human life.

do Garfield phones count as single use?

Plastic that's been buried in a landfill won't show up in the ocean. Plastic that's been burnt in incinerators won't show up in the ocean. As this story shows, if plastic finds its way into the ocean, it's because people had loaded it onto ships and dropped it there.

No, cars are. A million people directly killed every single year, another million killed by pollution. Roads everywhere. Killing animals. Huge industry polluting. Mining. Oil. Oil spills. etc...

Simple, suicides or drownings.

People die in the water wearing running shoes.

Then most of the body decomposes, but the feet stay in the shoes, which float on the surface due to the buoyant cushy soles (often containing air bladder cushions).

you'd think with the new dna 'matching random dna leads to that person's relatives' that keeps happening would lead us to identify some of those remains.

IMO both problems are similarly serious. Phytoplankton are responsible for producing at least half of the world's oxygen (50-85% depending on who you ask) and at the moment they are under constant threat, as they tend to consume plastic microparticles (not to mention are under heavy stress from the ever-increasing levels of noise pollution from e.g. fracking, oil exploration, shipping, etc).

If the global temperature rises a few degrees, the consequences will be catastrophic, but I somehow think we as a species will somehow survive (albeit many many many people will likely die).

Whereas if in 50 years there is 50-85% less oxygen in the air, I have a feeling that humans will be in a considerably worse position.

But who am I to kid, both events are likely going to happen and we will soon learn the meaning of Fermi's "Great Filter".